Campaign finance disclosure laws need major work

Published: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 10:35 a.m.

Last Modified: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 10:35 a.m.

The Alabama State Bar president's request for a probe of advertising by politically active groups in this month's state Supreme Court election is another reminder of the weakness of our campaign finance disclosure laws.

We need more transparency and accountability to build confidence in a system widely viewed as corrupt. In some instances, politicians are seen as puppets controlled by individuals or corporations who make large investments in their campaigns.

The fact that the state law allows many of those investments to be made secretly does not build trust in integrity. But the problem doesn't end there.

Bar President Mark White of Birmingham has asked Attorney General Troy King to see if any laws were broken by the Center for Individual Freedom, Americans in Contact Political Action Committee or Alabama Voters Against Lawsuit Abuse in the Supreme Court race between Republican Greg Shaw and Democrat Deborah Bell Paseur. Shaw narrowly won the election, which was one of the most expensive appellate contests in the country.

The candidates raised millions, spending much of their contributions on television advertising.

In addition, the three groups that White named ran advertising that attacked Paseur or praised Shaw. They did not specifically ask people to vote for Shaw, however.

For example, AVALA ran radio ads criticizing Paseur's performance as a district judge in Florence and her support from trial lawyers.

White says he has received many complaints that the ads amounted to political endorsements, which would require the sponsors to file campaign finance reports. But it's hard to see how King, a Republican like Shaw, would agree. Moreover, AVALA's executive director, Skip Tucker, argues that his group's ads were accurate and that free speech issues are at stake.

The activities of Americans in Contact Political Action Committee may be of a different stripe, however. The Virginia-based organization has been criticized for misleading automated telephone 'push polls.'

In the presidential contest, for example, voters complained that a poll that identified its sponsor as Americans in Contact asked 'Did you know that [Barack] Obama is a Muslim?' — a patent falsehood.

Similarly, automated phone calls that White linked to Americans in Contact falsely told voters that Paseur had received an 'F' rating from the State Bar. White said the Bar does not rate judges.

What is true, unfortunately, is that Alabama's campaign finance disclosure laws got an 'F' from the 2008 Grading State Disclosure report, a project of the California Voter Foundation, Center for Governmental Studies and the UCLA School of Law. The state's grade has been unchanged since 2003.

White says if King finds that Alabama laws do not offer some relief, then the Bar Association will lead the charge for reform.

<p>The Alabama State Bar president's request for a probe of advertising by politically active groups in this month's state Supreme Court election is another reminder of the weakness of our campaign finance disclosure laws.</p><p>We need more transparency and accountability to build confidence in a system widely viewed as corrupt. In some instances, politicians are seen as puppets controlled by individuals or corporations who make large investments in their campaigns.</p><p>The fact that the state law allows many of those investments to be made secretly does not build trust in integrity. But the problem doesn't end there.</p><p>Bar President Mark White of Birmingham has asked Attorney General Troy King to see if any laws were broken by the Center for Individual Freedom, Americans in Contact Political Action Committee or Alabama Voters Against Lawsuit Abuse in the Supreme Court race between Republican Greg Shaw and Democrat Deborah Bell Paseur. Shaw narrowly won the election, which was one of the most expensive appellate contests in the country.</p><p>The candidates raised millions, spending much of their contributions on television advertising. </p><p>In addition, the three groups that White named ran advertising that attacked Paseur or praised Shaw. They did not specifically ask people to vote for Shaw, however.</p><p>For example, AVALA ran radio ads criticizing Paseur's performance as a district judge in Florence and her support from trial lawyers.</p><p>White says he has received many complaints that the ads amounted to political endorsements, which would require the sponsors to file campaign finance reports. But it's hard to see how King, a Republican like Shaw, would agree. Moreover, AVALA's executive director, Skip Tucker, argues that his group's ads were accurate and that free speech issues are at stake.</p><p>The activities of Americans in Contact Political Action Committee may be of a different stripe, however. The Virginia-based organization has been criticized for misleading automated telephone 'push polls.'</p><p>In the presidential contest, for example, voters complained that a poll that identified its sponsor as Americans in Contact asked 'Did you know that [Barack] Obama is a Muslim?'  a patent falsehood.</p><p>Similarly, automated phone calls that White linked to Americans in Contact falsely told voters that Paseur had received an 'F' rating from the State Bar. White said the Bar does not rate judges.</p><p>What is true, unfortunately, is that Alabama's campaign finance disclosure laws got an 'F' from the 2008 Grading State Disclosure report, a project of the California Voter Foundation, Center for Governmental Studies and the UCLA School of Law. The state's grade has been unchanged since 2003.</p><p>White says if King finds that Alabama laws do not offer some relief, then the Bar Association will lead the charge for reform.</p><p>More power to him.</p>